The GPU War is Over - AdoredTV

[fingerbob69]

Arguing mind share is just an easy way to ignore Nvidia has a much better product pipeline than AMD does right now and into the foreseeable future.

Xbox
PS4
Crimson Drivers
Apple
Google Cloud
Intel gpu licensing [patent work-around for Intel, worth $1.5 billion = 6% of nVidia's income]

Polaris refresh? [RX 490 rumour]

Zen
Vega 10 & 11

AMD share price up 475% in under 12 months.

Yeah, AMD are fucked!

 

[Presbytier]

The only ones claiming it plays the whole role are you and the rest of the Nvidia-defense group. I even stated it plays a large role but not the only one. Even looking at Razors chart you see it. When they were dead even AMD at best hit 44% but seemed to hover around 35% ( 7xxx series forward, 4xxx and 5xxx are too close to ATI that I leave them out, I think ~5 years is good enough to make the case.)

No I'm still 100% sure I've never once said mind share plays the whole role and my entire arguments have been about pointing out all the other ways we've gotten to the point that NVIDIA has 80% of the market right now.

 

[Presbytier]

Xbox
PS4
Crimson Drivers
Apple
Google Cloud
Intel gpu licensing [patent work-around for Intel, worth $1.5 billion = 6% of nVidia's income]

Polaris refresh? [RX 490 rumour]

Zen
Vega 10 & 11

AMD share price up 475% in under 12 months.

Yeah, AMD are fucked!

That's a lot of words with absolutely no context, try harder next time.

 

[razor1]

The only ones claiming it plays the whole role are you and the rest of the Nvidia-defense group. I even stated it plays a large role but not the only one. Even looking at Razors chart you see it. When they were dead even AMD at best hit 44% but seemed to hover around 35% ( 7xxx series forward, 4xxx and 5xxx are too close to ATI that I leave them out, I think ~5 years is good enough to make the case.)

Add you read the chart WRONG!

It doesn't have the relative data based on what the companies were doing and exact release dates of products, that information, you need to look up to correlate what has been happening. Instead you are taking Adorned's word for it or using steam numbers based on different quarters you should be looking at a general, card is released in a certain quarter another IHV card released in the same quarter, but they can be 3 months apart, or launched by no volume for another quarter after, so a 2 quarter difference! That is what is missing, if you can't remember that the 7xxx had supply problems for 2 quarters, you need help. Cause everyone was saying miners were grabbing those cards up and that was why no one could buy them which was totally BS, cause the market share didn't reflect that. And if market share didn't go up that means the reason for ,no cards being available, is supply issues. Then look at what pricing changes were done based on competitors parts, at what times and then look at how market share changed.

All data points to a competitive market that is driven by the capabilities of products, and supply and demand. Marketing, mind share had little to do with end marketshare numbers.

 

[Spoonie_G]

Where and why?

4k games with a single card. I could do better with a 1070

I just bought a second Fury X so I could crossfire on three 1440p screens in an eyefinity setup. With driver improvements the Fury X is quite equitable to the 1070 on dx12 and vulcan and plenty fast enough for dx11 games as well. That is biased info you spewed, and inaccurate.

Fury X works quite well.

Proof in point: (2) Fury X in crossfire vs Nvidia cards in SLI on three 4K monitors.

Including a 12GB Titan X pair.

Think the Titan with 3x the RAM would destroy the Fury at 11,520 x 2160? Think again.
http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedi...re-triple-4k-eyefinity-11-520x2160/index.html

AMD is more than holding its own with the 1.5 year old Fury X card.

When did this become an SLI discussion?

I'd had nothing but Nvidia cards since about 1998 until 2014 it 2015. I bought a 285 from a GTX 670 and then went to a Fury X this year. The Fury X is a fantastic card especially at its current sale price point of about $330 new! Free sync being the new option on monitors like 5:1 helps make it easier to match a new display to the AMD cards too. Look for Nvidia profits and market share to continue to drop from this point forward until they begin to support free sync. Nobody desires to pay the $200 gsync tax and many people just won't.

I just sold a XFX FURY (water cooled). It wasn't cutting it when it came to 4k. A 1080 would be an improvement. I have a Freesync monitor so I'm still waiting on AMD. But I'm only going to wait for so long?

 

[Presbytier]

I imagine that if AMD had actually been competitive this year and launched some high end cards to compete with the 1070, 1080, and Titan XP respectively we might have seen that market share close in on each other, but the truth is AMD went with a low end strategy in the hopes NVIDIA didn't actually have any mainstream cards ready yet. It backfired teribly and now AMD is in an even bigger whole GPU wise and will have to absolutely wow with their next products to even remain relevant. Another bad product launch like Polaris and they are done.

 

[incredadamible]

Another bad product launch like Polaris and they are done

Done with what exactly?

 

[Presbytier]

Done with what exactly?

I'm being hyperbolic, but you can only compete at the bottom for so long even their dedicated customers may switch.

 

[Archaea]

I imagine that if AMD had actually been competitive this year and launched some high end cards to compete with the 1070, 1080, and Titan XP respectively we might have seen that market share close in on each other, but the truth is AMD went with a low end strategy in the hopes NVIDIA didn't actually have any mainstream cards ready yet. It backfired teribly and now AMD is in an even bigger whole GPU wise and will have to absolutely wow with their next products to even remain relevant. Another bad product launch like Polaris and they are done.

Uniformed Drivel

I still say FreeSync will be a significant contributing reason as to why AMD will rebound. Premium monitors are coming down to prices people (in mass) care to afford = $200-$300 range. For that you can get a 34" widescreen 2560x1080 or a 32" 1440p screen. Both respectable upgrades from a 22" or 24" 16x9 screen that 80% of the gaming population has. At those pricepoints its ONLY freesync - not gysync. People will buy a freesync monitor now, and then next gen - mainstream users will buy a card that will offer freesync. Nvidia better start offering freesync --- and soon. Already monitors with freesync out number monitors with gsync 5:1 (that's a BIG deal) and freesync monitors are ~$200 cheaper than comparable gsync monitors. (that's another big deal). The gsync or freesync technology is both worthwhile and the word is out. Now consumers want the feature, but MOST consumers aren't willing to pay through the nose for it. Most consumers also don't want a video card that costs more than $200-$300. Nvidia is all about the premium experience, the CEO says so. He says my customer are willing to pay for the Nvidia Gsync experience. That is not true of all Nvidia's entire customer base - in fact - consumers are smart --- they'll figure out quickly that if they can save 50% by moving to AMD graphics card and a FreeSync monitor and have a pretty comparable experience for $300 less overall --- that'll lead to a paradigm shift in most popular video card.

Actually IMO - AMD did a pretty clever thing by targeting the mid-market segment with the RX480. They had a few misteps (the power debacle, overpromising a bit etc) - but if they can get that quite decent card in a lot of machines - with the goal of having the broader consumer begin to realize/acknowledge that their drivers are not terrible as is constantly relayed by people on the forums - and that their cards are a good value offering - that'll be a big win! Couple that with inexpensive freesync monitors available to all that probably last two to three generations of future video card upgrades to the casual gamer and AMD is playing smart for the long game.

 

[Archaea]

4k games with a single card. I could do better with a 1070



When did this become an SLI discussion?



I just sold a XFX FURY (water cooled). It wasn't cutting it when it came to 4k. A 1080 would be an improvement. I have a Freesync monitor so I'm still waiting on AMD. But I'm only going to wait for so long?

Should have bought a second Fury X and crossfired. They were $305 at newegg after rebate on Black Friday.

Two crossfired would have been easily faster than a 1080 on any new generation game. You'd still have freesync functionality for the monitor you currently have, and it would have been half the upgrade cost.

 

[Presbytier]

Uniformed Drivel

I still say FreeSync will be a significant contributing reason as to why AMD will rebound. Premium monitors are coming down to prices people (in mass) care to afford = $200-$300 range. For that you can get a 34" widescreen 2560x1080 or a 32" 1440p screen. Both respectable upgrades from a 22" or 24" 16x9 screen that 80% of the gaming population has. At those pricepoints its ONLY freesync - not gysync. People will buy a freesync monitor now, and then next gen - mainstream users will buy a card that will offer freesync. Nvidia better start offering freesync --- and soon. Already monitors with freesync out number monitors with gsync 5:1 (that's a BIG deal) and freesync monitors are ~$200 cheaper than comparable gsync monitors. (that's another big deal). The gsync or freesync technology is both worthwhile.

View attachment 12055

Freesync has been around for awhile if it was going to make a big impact on AMD bottom line it allready would have. And seriously don't just post a picture of AND stock prices as if that actually tells a story other than people like investing into them. Lots of companies that may or may not be doing well can have solid stocks. Stock market valuation doesn't equate to actual company health or future health.

 

[Presbytier]

Should have bought a second Fury X and crossfired. They were $305 at newegg after rebate on Black Friday.

Two crossfired would have been easily faster than a 1080 on any new generation game. You'd still have freesync functionality for the monitor you currently have, and it would have been half the upgrade cost.

Only faster on games that support crossfire real well which like SLI aren't that many, plus you'd be hitting a ceiling on vram in some games like Rise of the Tomb Raider.

 

[Archaea]

Only faster on games that support crossfire real well which like SLI aren't that many, plus you'd be hitting a ceiling on vram in some games like Rise of the Tomb Raider.

once again...
http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedi...re-triple-4k-eyefinity-11-520x2160/index.html

 

[Archaea]

Freesync has been around for awhile if it was going to make a big impact on AMD bottom line it allready would have. And seriously don't just post a picture of AND stock prices as if that actually tells a story other than people like investing into them. Lots of companies that may or may not be doing well can have solid stocks. Stock market valuation doesn't equate to actual company health or future health.

no...these options have been 'spinning up'. They are now fairly mature and prices have come down to mass consumer level (you no longer have to pay $1200 for the experience). Freesync obviously won the war.

This will have implications, IF Nvidia stays stubborn and won't budge on adopting freesync.

I'm saying this as a LONG time - nearly 15 year tenure Nvidia only fan.

I just bought three 32" freesync 1440p monitors. While I have these freesync monitors I will be buying AMD cards. I'm not alone. If Nvidia started supporting freesync I would have no problem jumping back to Nvidia at a future point. I'm not glued to a graphics card camp - I'll switch sides based on value, as long as the drivers are comparable, and the performance is generally comparable. I used to be Nvidia only because ATI drivers were blatantly bad at various LAN parties I attended circa 1997-2004 ish. That's no longer the case. When I switched to AMD last year, I noticed little difference in glitches in AMD over my experiences with Nvidia. A bit more yes, honestly, but like a couple or three titles in my 100 game catalogue, vs. 1 title in my game catalogue with Nividia (that type of thing) - meaning the driver quality delta is mostly inconsequential at this time. By contrast the freesync/gsync tearing reduction is positively evident in lots of games.

 

[razor1]

no...these options have been 'spinning up'. They are now fairly mature and prices have come down to mass consumer level (you no longer have to pay $1200 for the experience). Freesync obviously won the war.

This will have implications, IF Nvidia stays stubborn and won't budget on adopting freesync.

Ok you say freesync won, lets see with:

25% of the Desktop market share how many of those people are running Freesync?
75% of the Desktop market share how many of those people are running G sync?

Even if AMD freesync monitors users are x3 the % of Gync another words 300% is the only way they will reach up to G sync sales amount. Would that even be a realistic assessment with the current number of AMD users vs nV users? No its not.

Now lets talk about laptops, many of the nV laptops come with G sync,

What is the notebook markeshare breakdown for nV and AMD?

Yeah numbers don't show what you are saying.

 

[Archaea]

Ok you say freesync won, lets see with:

25% of the Desktop market share how many of those people are running Freesync?
75% of the Desktop market share how many of those people are running G sync?

Even if AMD freesync monitors users are x3 the % of Gync another words 300% is the only way they will reach up to G sync sales amount. Would that even be a realistic assessment with the current number of AMD users vs nV users? No its not.

Now lets talk about laptops, many of the nV laptops come with G sync,

What is the notebook markeshare breakdown for nV and AMD?

Yeah numbers don't show what you are saying.

Re-read what I've been saying --- I'm saying future...

not current picture.

 

[razor1]

Yeah ok, even in the future, unless AMD can make competitive parts to take back market share, that won't happen. The monitors being sold with which ever sync tech is because of the graphics cards being sold. People that went the other way around and expected to be getting a certain IHV's graphics card so they bought the monitor first, have gotten burned, just search here, there are many of those threads.

 

[cocdod]

Should have bought a second Fury X and crossfired. They were $305 at newegg after rebate on Black Friday.

Two crossfired would have been easily faster than a 1080 on any new generation game. You'd still have freesync functionality for the monitor you currently have, and it would have been half the upgrade cost.

Crossfire introduces too much stutter to be viable in any use case.

 

[Presbytier]

Re-read what I've been saying --- I'm saying future...

not current picture.

That future relies on AMD releasing competitive GPUs which they have not done in around 3 years, so...


EDIT: Snark aside I would like to see NVIDIA adopt freesync or at least drop prices on gsync devices.

 

[Spoonie_G]

Should have bought a second Fury X and crossfired. They were $305 at newegg after rebate on Black Friday.

Two crossfired would have been easily faster than a 1080 on any new generation game. You'd still have freesync functionality for the monitor you currently have, and it would have been half the upgrade cost.

I only do single cards (But that can change). I'd just get 2 Nanos if that were the case. Depending on the prices of the newer cards, I might just do 2 Nanos.

 

[Spoonie_G]

Crossfire introduces too much stutter to be viable in any use case.

If that's the case then I will stay with a single card. The last time I SLI'd anything was a Voodoo2 lol.

 

[NKD]

I sware. I had a 1000 amd stocks I bought for $1.92. Fuck my life. I should have held on to it. LOL..

 

[Archaea]

If that's the case then I will stay with a single card. The last time I SLI'd anything was a Voodoo2 lol.

I ordered my second Fury X over BF. I haven't gotten to test it yet because it seems to be defective, so I need to RMA it. I've not read anything overwhelmingly negative about crossfire and playability. I'm going to give it a shot anyway.

 

[Archaea]

I sware. I had a 1000 amd stocks I bought for $1.92. Fuck my life. I should have held on to it. LOL..

I bought AMD stock at about $8 a share when Xbox 360 and PS4 came out. It dropped to $2 for years. I still have it.

I've basically just made my money back like 4 years later.

I told a bunch of my co-workers to invest in it about eight months back when the RX480 launched and the engineering samples looked STRONG for its price segment. It was about $2.50 at that time. I didn't have any extra $ to invest. They laughed at me. "AMD isn't coming back". Neither of us is laughing now. I've just broke even and they lost a great opportunity. I think even currently AMD has a lot of ground to potentially gain. I'm still going to hold onto my stock for the intermediate future. We'll see what ZEN brings.

 

[fingerbob69]

That's a lot of words with absolutely no context, try harder next time.

I'd of thought the context was quite obvious. My post was a response to yours ...you know the one I quoted .... where you claimed AMD 'had nothing in the pipe-line".

 

[Presbytier]

I'd of thought the context was quite obvious. My post was a response to yours ...you know the one I quoted .... where you claimed AMD 'had nothing in the pipe-line".

I pointed out a week pipeline and sales figures and market share shows that. You through out a bunch of random things AMD does (and Apple is looking at switching to NVIDIA based on NVIDIA hiring) with little or no context on how those things buoy your argument. I could easily throw out a list of all the things Imagination Technologies is involved in and we still would have to recognize that that company is seriously hurting as well.

 

[TheLAWNoob]

I can't stand that guys accent.

I'd rather listen to Linus' voice than this.

 

[tajoh111]

Adores analysis is lazy and doesn't take into account that generally each time AMD caught up to Nvidia, Nvidia launched a spoiler card or dropped their price so the price to performance of AMD vs Nvidia was very similar. Nvidia's flagships have always had bad price to performance but what about cards like 8800gt, gtx 260/260 216 core after price cuts(look at techpowerup, performance was much closer with 4870), gtx 460, gtx 670, gtx 970 and even the gtx 1070. These cards upon release had similar price to performance or better price to performance than AMD cards.

And when the brand with more brand prestige has equal price to performance as the brand with less prestige. Guess what, the brand with more prestige is going to sell more. This goes with cars, clothes and pretty much anything. Blaming mind share is lazy and by adores logic, every company should basically give up now if they have worse brand value. But company with the most prestige at the time have switched places over time and this is because of the successful business execution and capitalizing on competitors mistakes.

The one time AMD got it right at launch during the last 4 years, was the r9 290x. However miners killed the gaming marketshare so 290/290x were + 200 over their retail price. Same thing happened with Polaris until recently. Miners are in the long run bad for AMD. They kill the gaming supply and when they are done with the cards, they flood the market with used cards which isn't an additional sale for AMD and they sink new prices for cards.

For AMD to increase it's brand value, it needs to execute launches in a manner that Nvidia cannot counter them. If Nvidia is able to release a product with similar price to performance, do not be surprised if Nvidia is able to keep their marketshare.

People comparing Nvidia to apple are ridiculous. Until recently with the iphone SE, Apple has never had to release a value product to counter the competition. They even prevented sale prices on their products. ANd because of its mindshare, it sat on top of it's product with everything with a vast price premium vs the competition and was still successful. If Nvidia didn't launch any of the cards I listed in the first paragraph or do pricecuts, their marketshare would be in the toilet.

Lets also not forget he ignores the market presence of lower end cards for Oems and the laptop market. Nvidia's has until maybe a year or two ago, been much better than AMD's for support, particularly with laptops in terms of driver frequency. When your a OEM, support is everything, even more important than performance. This is you don't want to have a busy tech support and you don't want computers being repair all the time for trivial driver issues. Sure Nvidia has flubbed with drivers every once in a while but these issues get resolved much quicker than AMD.

He's too biased for AMD and he might even be a shill. Like come on, he takes the end of life clearance pricing of the 5870(which is not available in much quantity) and compares it to the launch price of the gtx 560 ti. Like lets compare everything to the r9 290 tri x when it was being cleared out at 200 dollars. How logical is that?

 

[CSI_PC]

The one time AMD got it right at launch during the last 4 years, was the r9 290x. However miners killed the gaming marketshare so 290/290x were + 200 over their retail price. Same thing happened with Polaris until recently. Miners are in the long run bad for AMD. They kill the gaming supply and when they are done with the cards, they flood the market with used cards which isn't an additional sale for AMD and they sink new prices for cards.

Worth noting Pascal actually makes a very competitive mining card as well, apart from in Ethereum where it must be run on Linux otherwise the performance is terrible.
Cheers